The recent grounding of a Shell oil rig near Alaska’s Kodiak Island may have been the biggest mishap of the 2012 Arctic drilling season, but it was hardly the only one. This past year the exploration in America’s Arctic Ocean has been characterized by one problem after another, including the near grounding of a second rig and safety and engineering concerns that prevented deployment of a promised oil spill containment barge. Taken together, these missteps raise a serious question that goes beyond any single accident or, for that matter, any single oil company: Is the United States ready to drill in such a remote and risky setting?

The most publicized of the season’s many incidents was the grounding of the drill rig Kulluk on New Year’s Eve in the Gulf of Alaska as it was being towed south through a fierce storm. The towing vessel’s engines failed, and the towline broke multiple times in 25-foot seas and 50 mile-per-hour winds.

As luck would have it, the grounding occurred within reach of the largest U.S. Coast Guard station in Alaska. Coast Guard helicopters evacuated the 18 crew members, a multi-agency team of 730 people oversaw efforts to free the grounded rig, and no oil was spilled.

But imagine if this incident had happened near the actual drill sites farther north in Alaska’s remote Chukchi and Beaufort seas, where Arctic conditions can be even harsher and distance from help is much greater. Hurricane-force winds, high seas, impenetrable fog, and shifting sea ice are common. The region has no major roads, ports, or airports. The Coast Guard station at Kodiak is more than 1,000 miles away, and a response would be daunting.

America’s Arctic Ocean is central to the sustenance and culture of indigenous communities that have depended on its bounty for thousands of years. Its ice-covered waters support bowhead whales, Pacific walrus, ice seals, polar bears, and other marine mammals found nowhere else in the United States. Its brief summers draw millions of migratory birds to feed and breed.

To protect this national treasure, the United States needs a comprehensive, science-based management plan that preserves traditional cultural areas and ecologically important habitats.

Arctic-specific safety, spill prevention, and response standards must be adopted to stand up to the region’s extreme conditions. As the past season showed, those standards aren’t in place.

(These comments were submitted by Randall Luthi, President of the National Ocean Industries Association.)

No one contests the need to proceed cautiously with energy exploration and development, whether it is in Alaskan waters or on the plains of North Dakota. However, calls to end Arctic oil and natural gas exploration often overstate the risks, understate the economic and energy potential, and inject hyperbolic claims into what should be a reasoned, fact-based policy making decision.

Opponents of Arctic energy exploration point to the accidental grounding of the Kulluk drilling rig, the near-grounding of the Noble Discoverer and flaws with one containment vessel, as justification to end all oil and natural gas exploration activities in the Arctic. While these were indeed unfortunate mishaps, none of them had direct connection to actual drilling activities. In fact, the actual (limited) drilling operations in the Arctic last year were conducted safely and without incident.

The Kulluk and Noble Discoverer mishaps were, rather, both examples of transportation accidents. That makes them more akin to an incident involving a cruise ship. However, if one of those runs aground, the cruise ship industry continues to operate, even in Alaska.

The flaws with the containment vessel were discovered during a test run. Identifying sticking points and incorporating their lessons into future designs is exactly why these tests are scheduled in the first place. Much like the space program, offshore energy exploration is a complex engineering feat. Testing and inspections, such as where the cited containment vessel failed, are a crucial part of a carefully planned and thorough process, and will make the overall operation safer and more secure once it actually occurs.

Admittedly, the Arctic is a challenging region in which to operate. Weather conditions, near-freezing water and distance from widespread infrastructure will require innovative solutions. In fact, one upside from the retreat of historic sea-ice levels is that the ice becomes less of a threat to sea-surface installations. In some respects, less sea ice makes operating in the Arctic less risky, not more.

Additional infrastructure for rapid spill response, worker housing, and an increased Coast Guard presence must be built. But there has to be offshore activity before such investments can be justified. When drilling commences, the fleets and equipment will be there, and are in fact required under the permitting process. Regulators are in the process of verifying that all containment, response and clean-up measures required will be in place during drilling. The companies are already responsible for any potential damages and mitigation and it is in their best interest to ensure the necessary facilities and technologies are there.

Finally, consider what is at stake. The Arctic has huge oil and gas reserves—90 billion barrels of oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to U.S. Geological Survey estimates. Norway, Canada, Russia and other nations are already staking their claims to the immense energy potential in the region. Clearly, they do not share the same fear that arctic regions cannot be explored and developed safely.

The United States cannot afford to overlook the tremendous potential for the development of oil and natural gas from the Arctic. Yes, it is impossible to eliminate all risk. But the risks are minimal and the reward for the nation is incalculable. This development will generate necessary domestic jobs, send royalty revenue to the increasingly-strained federal treasury, offer a continued supply to ensure the Trans-Alaska Pipeline’s viability for decades to come, and strengthen our national security with an abundance of homegrown resources. This can all be done safely, under a rigorous system of inspections and oversight. It is most definitely NOT time to abandon the Arctic.

Our industry remains committed to safe and responsible development of America’s oil and natural gas resources, wherever exploration and production may occur. We’ve demonstrated this by crafting detailed technical standards for operations onshore and offshore – standards that have been cited hundreds of times in federal regulations. We’ve stood up a new Center for Offshore Safety specifically tasked with compiling and sharing knowledge and best practices and with helping companies manage efforts to make offshore workplaces safer and to protect the environment. The result is decades of safe drilling operations in the Arctic, in the United States and around the world. More than 150 wells have been drilled offshore in Arctic waters of the U.S. and Canada, and more than 50 wells have been drilled in the U.S. Beaufort and Chukchi seas.

Certainly, the recent grounding of the Kulluk oil drilling barge in Alaskan waters was unfortunate, and assessments are under way to help prevent future incidents. But let’s be clear: This was a transportation issue, not a drilling issue. The fact is the preliminary drilling off Alaska’s northern coast last summer proceeded according to a careful plan that emphasized safety at every turn.

Looking at the big picture, there’s no question the extraordinary benefits of energy development in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas make the risks of working in harsh conditions, though certainly challenging, well worth overcoming through sound technology and prudent operations.

According to government estimates, there are about 50 billion barrels of recoverable oil and more than 220 trillion feet of recoverable natural gas in Alaska’s North Slope and in the waters off the state’s northern coast. One study said commercialization of the oil and natural gas resources in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas could generate nearly $200 billion in revenues to federal, state and local governments while creating an annual average of 54,700 jobs nationwide over the next 50 years. Alaska state officials are unequivocal in saying that Arctic drilling is critical to the state’s economic future.

Every important energy analysis forecasts rising demand for oil and natural gas, in the United States and across the globe. The Alaskan Arctic holds vast energy reserves that can be safely and responsibly developed. Instead of shying away from the Arctic’s unique challenges, let’s learn and adapt to make this great store of American energy wealth work for America.

Shell’s repeated failures in the Arctic Ocean prove that neither the company nor offshore drilling belong in these wild, remote, and rugged waters. The company’s drilling rig, for instance, ran aground when four tug engines failed in a storm. Yet the North is region of mishaps – mechanical, human, and natural. It is home to churning seas, punishing winds, frigid temperatures, unpredictable ice, and months of prolonged darkness. Shell’s inability to prepare for and cope with these punishing conditions makes it vividly clear: we have no business letting the oil industry drill in the Arctic Ocean.

The grounding of Shell’s drilling rig is not an isolated incident. It is part of a larger pattern in which Shell has proven no match for the elements.

Last July, another of the company’s drill rigs nearly ran aground in the Aleutian Islands. Through August, Shell couldn’t move its spill response barge—a linchpin in its emergency plan—out of Bellingham, WA because the Coast Guard wouldn’t certify it as seaworthy until the company dealt with more than 400 issues, including wiring and other safety shortcomings. Then, when Shell started preliminary drilling without the spill response barge in place, within 24 hours its rig had to turn tail and flee from a 30-mile long iceberg that bore down on the drill site. And in September, Shell’s containment dome—used to capture oil in the event of spill—was “crushed like a beer can” during pre-deployment testing.

Shell has poured billions of dollars into offshore Arctic drilling, but no matter how much it spends, it cannot make the effort anything but a terrifying gamble. And if Shell, the most profitable company on Earth, can’t buy its way to safety in Alaska, nobody can.

That is why the administration should halt all drilling in the Arctic Ocean. Neither the oil industry nor our government is prepared to respond to a spill in a region where the closest Coast Guard base is 1,000 miles away from the leasing sites, no proven technology exists to collect oil, and winter ice makes spill response impossible. Nor do we even know all the damage a spill and clean-up efforts would do to Arctic ecosystems. Very little research has been done yet in these waters and we have only a narrow body of research focusing on just a few species. Until these gaps in emergency response and research are filled, federal agencies cannot responsibly even weigh whether drilling in the Arctic Ocean could ever be safe.

The series of failures in both judgment and technology that resulted in Shell’s Kulluk drill rig crashing into Alaska’s Sitkalidak Island on New Years Eve has put wildlife and human life at increasing and unacceptable risk. Alarmingly only the latest in a series of problems with Shell’s drilling season, it should also put an end to drilling in the Arctic.

The list of problems that Shell’s drilling program has had is well documented and very disturbing—from losing control of the Noble Discovery drill ship, to the oil containment dome that was “crushed like a can” by arctic ice, to violoations of air safety permits, and now the grounding of the Kulluk. But, in this most recent incident alone, there are three things that stand out as indicative of Shell’s problems and as reasons why the fate of the Arctic drilling program should be sealed once and for all.

First, the Kulluk was hauled out to sea in dangerously unpredictable weather putting human lives and wildlife at risk so Shell could avoid paying tax on the vessel to the state of Alaska. Shell’s willingness to put profit above human safety and the environment is consistent with the safety commission’s warnings that the poor safety culture at BP was really an industry–wide problem, and not the outlier that Shell and others tried to suggest.

Second, it took 700 people and a fleet of Coast Guard vessels to respond to the grounding of the Kulluk. But if this incident, let alone a major oil spill or other catastrophe, had happened in the deep Arctic there would not be anywhere near 700 people to respond. It is clear that Shell was simply not equipped to respond when the Kulluk ran aground. How can we expect them to be prepared if something happened in an even more remote area?

Third, the grounding of the Kulluk demonstrated that despite all the promises to the contrary, the industry just does not have the technology to function safely in the Arctic environment. The Aiviq tug is a multimillion dollar ice crusher designed specifically to handle high seas and bad weather. It’s been presented as a symbol of why we should feel safe about Shell’s drilling in the rugged and remote Arctic. But in its first major storm, the Aiviq not only lost control of the Kulluk, it also lost power in all four of its engines and was itself at the whim of the rough seas. According to reports, after the Aiviq restored its connection to the Kulluk the Coast Guard had it drop its line and cut the Kulluk loose again, in order to protect the lives of Aiviq crew because of the harsh weather conditions.

If the Obama administration wants to be credible when it speaks about pursuing safe offshore drilling, then the grounding of the Kulluk must be the last straw. The lack of a demonstrated culture of safety, the obvious lack of response resources, and the lack of proven technology capable of avoiding or addressing a crisis should be a loud and clear signal that the administration needs to end drilling in the Arctic.

There can be no progress without accepting some level of risk. Drilling for oil and gas has never been risk-free and never will be. That is also true of all complex activity. Boeing’s problem with its Dreamliner is a clear example of that fact. Yet, in time the Dreamliner will probably set the standard for future generations of aircraft. The battery problem like other problems with innovation will be solved as will any problems that develop in exploring the Arctic will as well.

The ship grounding that has led to calls to cease Arctic drilling was a case of the vessel breaking away from the tug that was pulling it. The incident did not involve any release of oil or environmental damage. The petroleum industry has a great deal of experience in exploration and production in hostile environments and an excellent record in drilling in deep water and hostile environments. An excellent record is not a perfect one. Accidents do happen. What is important is that enough planning takes place so that sufficient resources are in place to make sure that the effects of any accident can be contained.

Almost 30 years ago, oil exploration began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. It required new technology and innovation, as did the construction and operation of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline. Any objective assessment of the North Slope operation would give it high marks. Similarly, in the late 90s, a consortium developed a platform—Hibernia – for drilling off the coast of Nova Scotia in an area called “iceberg alley.” Although precautions were taken to keep icebergs from hitting the platform, it was designed to withstand being hit. Exploration and production in the North Sea is another example of being able to operate in a very hostile environment.

In the case of Shell’s drilling plan for the Arctic Ocean, there was a significant and expensive environmental impact assessment conducted, along with extensive contingency planning done before permits were granted. So far, Shell has invested over $4 billion in this project and drilling has yet to begin. When a company invests that kind of money in a project it is reasonably certain that every realistic contingency has been anticipated and every reasonable precaution taken. Shell’s record and reputation along with the record of the offshore industry are reasons for not hyperventilating over a drilling ship breaking loose from a tugboat. The grounding is no reason for apocalyptic rhetoric.

The arctic region holds promise for enormous reserves of oil and gas. Producing them will be a windfall for Alaska and produce economic benefits widely in the lower 48 states. For over two decades, environmentalists have stood in the way of exploration and production on Alaska’s coastal plain, a mere 65 miles from Prudhoe Bay. The arguments used are long on sound bite rhetoric and short on scientific facts. The time has come for them to engage and stop being intransigent road blocks.

As a general principle, US companies should be allowed to explore and drill where they can demonstrate the technical skills, resources, and performance history to do so in a responsible manner and in a way that minimizes risks while protecting nature’s wonders. A demand for guarantees of no risk is a call to stop progress.

The Obama Administration must remain steadfast in its support for Arctic offshore energy exploration while continuing to enforce strict safety standards over drilling operations. Recent calls to end Arctic exploration are overly reactionary, short-sighted and based on hyperbolic fears. The Obama Administration should ensure that the regulations in place can effectively minimize the risks of drilling without discouraging the most-capable operators from moving forward in this vital energy frontier. In undertaking this 60-day review, the Administration must understand that its actions could have sweeping, generational impacts for the future of Arctic energy. Its decision not only affects the prospects for Shell’s venture, but also efforts by other operators invested in the region, and America’s role as a global leader in Arctic development and Arctic policy.

The Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) holds significant influence on the future of U.S. economic and energy security as well as global geopolitical relations. The U.S. Chukchi and Beaufort Seas could well be one of the most prolific energy reserves in North America, holding an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Given its immense natural resource potential as well as strategic importance, it’s clear why the U.S. government declared that our nation has “broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic.”

Failure to increase Arctic oil production could force the premature closure of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. TAPS – one of the most critical energy infrastructures in the United States – is averaging less than 600,000 barrels of throughput a day, down from a high of nearly 2 million barrels a day in 1988. Low throughput increases the likelihood of inoperability due to the hazards that compound with low volumes of warm oil in the pipeline. Closing the pipeline would strand Alaskan oil, which currently accounts for nearly 10 percent of U.S. production, and cause a supply crisis for consumers on the West Coast who consume over half a million barrels daily of Alaskan crude.

Additionally, the United States needs to be a leader in Arctic, particularly a leader in how to face environmental challenges with science, technology and thoughtful regulation. Premature calls to end exploration because the Arctic is too harsh, too unpredictable, or too risky for any type of economic activity will put the United States on the sidelines. Greenland and Norway, both of which have already established oil and gas programs, demonstrate that Arctic exploration, while challenging, can be accomplished safely. In fact, Norway’s even laid out a 20-year plan to expand its development of Arctic resources, noting it’s “a project of a generation.” This is the kind of determination and vision the United States projected when it launched its space program. One would only hope will still possess these attributes today.

The economics, technology and outlook all point to the viability of Arctic OCS development and the need for it. While it may be years before any meaningful production of oil comes online, the United States should be taking steps now to expand exploration and production in order to meet future demand – not to discourage it.

Energy security, economic growth, and scientific understanding and leadership are reasons to “do big things” in the Arctic. No one is trying to abdicate the responsibility for protecting the environment. But now is not the time to let fear drive public policy. Let’s take a leading role and make the Arctic with all of its economic and energy security benefits, a resource for all Americans.

(These comments were submitted by Susan Murray, Deputy Vice President of the Pacific at Oceana and 22-year resident of Alaska.)

The remote waters off Alaska can be harsh and unforgiving. Natural selection still plays a vivid role in survival in our ocean waters, and there is little to no room for mistakes. There are countless stories of mariners that have run afoul of the forces of nature and did not live to tell the tale. In that regard, Shell got lucky – very lucky – in its latest “mishap” with the grounding of the Kulluk. Had the vessel not been within reach of Kodiak, which is home to Alaska’s largest Coast Guard station, the story could have ended very differently. Instead it ended with no loss of life and, so far, no environmental disaster. But there is still a massive oil rig anchored in a remote and pristine bay off Kodiak Island with relatively little information available to the public about the damage it suffered or plans for its fate. At the same time, the Kulluk’s sister vessel, the drill ship Noble Discoverer is stranded in Seward after, apparently, undergoing criminal investigation due to safety and discharge problems. According to Shell, the engines on that vessel are not functioning properly, and it, too, will need to be towed to Seattle. So, taking stock, both of the vessels on which Shell is depending to drill for oil in the Arctic are disabled in different places in Alaska. That doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the company’s ability to conduct operations in one of the harshest places on the planet.

The current vessel strandings, of course, are not the whole story; they are just the latest chapter in a season of bad judgment and failed equipment. To name just a few examples, in July, the Noble Discoverer dragged anchor in Dutch Harbor, nearly grounding; Shell polluted the clean Arctic air by violating emissions permits that the company had already successfully lobbied to be watered down from standards to which it had agreed earlier; Shell’s oil spill containment dome failed miserably in tests in calm conditions in Puget Sound, “breaching like a whale,” and ending up “crushed like a beer can,” according to correspondence from government officials; and at the end of the drill season in the Beaufort Sea, the company could not remove workers from the Kulluk as scheduled because they had no de-icing equipment for their shore side helicopters. And we are being asked to take Shell’s promises seriously? Who would plan for work in the Arctic in November that depends on air support and not be prepared to de-ice aircraft?

The Department of the Interior has begun a 60-day review of the past year’s drilling season in the Arctic Ocean, and we applaud that step in the right direction. Oceana has sought a full, fair, and transparent review of the standards and oversight applied t to Arctic Ocean drilling. Such an investigation should include not only Department of the Interior (DOI) and Coast Guard, but also NOAA and other agencies. Given that DOI granted many of the permits that allowed Shell to operate in the Arctic, has defended those decisions publicly and in court, and has restated its commitment to exploring for oil in Arctic waters in the future, we question the agency’s ability to conduct such a searching investigation. Congress and the president could intercede and require a truly independent review. Also, protecting lives and our ocean resources is more important than completing a review in an expedited manner. The government should do this right, not just quickly.

Shell’s miserable 2012 attempts to drill in the Arctic Ocean should serve as a cautionary tale for the US and other Arctic nations—companies clearly are not prepared for the dangers and unpredictability in the Arctic. We simply do not yet have the technology to safely conduct these activities. What we do have is yet another attempt by an oil company to push the envelope in order to cash in on its investment while making hollow promises that this time everything will be OK. We had enough near misses this season to see that isn’t the case at all, and we should immediately cease and desist from offshore Arctic drilling. The oil isn’t going anywhere. In the meantime, technology could advance, and we could pursue options like conservation that might make it unnecessary ever to take the risks posed by drilling in the Arctic Ocean.

InWhy We Now Oppose Drilling in the Arctic, former, high-level political advisors, Carol Browner and John Podesta, make clear that Shell “has only itself to blame” for the failed 2012 drilling season. Furthermore, they go on to affirm that “it has become clear that there is no safe and responsible way to drill for oil and gas in the Arctic Ocean.” President Obama has an opportunity to demonstrate the leadership we hoped for when he was elected. Now is the time to stand up to Big Oil and stand with the American people, our oceans and as a steward for our public resources. The government must re-assess its commitment to exploration in difficult places like the Arctic and how it makes decisions about our ocean resources. The relatively small amount of oil that might be produced from the Arctic is not worth the great risk to our oceans.

While the Shell rig, BP Gulf spill and Exxon Valdez spill garnered public attention, the Christian Science Monitor's 2010 story puts it all in perspective: "According to the U.S. Department of Energy, 1.3 million gallons (4.9 million liters) of petroleum are spilled into U.S. waters from vessels and pipelines in a typical year. A major oil spill could easily double that amount. Between 1971 and 2000, the U.S. Coast Guard identified more than 250,000 oil spills in U.S. waters, according to a 2002 report from the U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service. Approximately 1.7 billion gallons (6.4 billion liters) of oil were lost as a result of tanker incidents from 1970 to 2009, according to International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited, which collects data on oil spills from tankers and other sources." While there is plenty of oil, it tends to be in deeper wells and more harsh areas which adds to costs and risks. There is no way to get out of this reality. The public policy question should be: "Is the risk worth it”? Since petroleum is a global commodity, increasing supply does levelize global oil prices but accidents can cost taxpayers billions as well as other industries impacted, which could cost more than the energy savings. In Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, the fishing industry took the biggest hit, and global fishing stocks are crashing. The tourist and sporting industries are the next biggest losers with touring, hunting and fishing curtailed. Pipeline spills spoil farmland and aquifers where agriculture and communities rely on clean water, and clean water is a premium. While regulation helps, the better approach is realistically monetizing penalties to those harmed - in a faster and more judicious way. Then the marketplace will actually become a better regulator and those searching for energy will have to escrow dollars at realistic levels. The fundamental problem, is that those accessing energy do not have to face all the risks they impose. Author Thomas L. Friedman labels it: "privatizing gains and socializing losses". The potential risk penalties have to address not only experienced harm but future harm. If an oil spill or rupture not only disrupts business and harms property or public resources, that harm has to be monetized not only at the time span of the accident but the future diminished value or property, resources, and business, i.e. fish stocks diminish and do not rebuild until a decade later. Until transparent, realistic and speedy renumeration is tied to risk, we will continue to have this gamesmanship of our resources and risky behavior. Rather than regulate with oodles of rules, turn the tables by establishing risk escrows, third party enforcement, and speedy payments to those harmed, and you will see less risky behavior and deployment of drilling and mining and fracking projects in areas that make little sense and impose higher risks.